lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doron Cohen <>
Subject Re: Various Ideas from ApacheCon
Date Tue, 08 May 2007 15:29:58 GMT
> : If the user is savvy enough to 'rebuild' their documents from an
> : external source, then the fields do not need to be stored (just the
> : OID field for convenience).
> it's this rebuilding that people tend to dislike about the delete/re-add
> process that's currently neccessary to "update" a document in Lucene ..
> people don't wnat to have to be savvy enough to rebuild their documents
> from an external source, they want to throw a bunch of docs in, do some
> searches, pull a doc out, modify one field and throw it back in again.
> at least: that's how i would characterize most questions about "updating"
> docs.
> if the issue was just one of supporting an updateDoc(Document) method
> where the client is expected to "rebuild" the entire doc before calling
> method, then we've already got that ... it's
> IndexWriter.updateDocument(Term,Document).

Perhaps the method name "IndexWriter.updateDocument()" is
misleading and should be "replaceDocument()" - b/c this is
actually what happens - an old document is being replaced by
a new one.  Won't help those wanting to really update part of
an existing document, but might at least set expectations
right and reduce some confusion.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message